So Your Sister's a Unicorn

John Shore gave poly-friendly response to a letter he got. One of the places you can find it is  huffingtonpost.com. Click through his links to his other writings. They are worth a read, especially if you identify as Christian or otherwise deal with people who are anti-equality who do identify as Christian. As I've said before, you can find allies (and people who want equality but are denied) in just about every religion, in Atheist circles... everywhere. And, unfortunately, you can find prejudice just about everywhere, too, although obviously Atheists will not invoke some religion-based dictate in opposition to equality.

From the concerned letter-writer...

Here's the situation: My sister has come to me and told me that she has decided to be in a three-person relationship. My husband and I met the guy in the relationship last week (at the time she just told us he was her boyfriend). But now she has told us the truth, and is asking us to meet the woman this week. We are supposed to keep this a secret from our parents.

I don't want to meet her. My husband doesn't want to meet her. I don't think this is right for my sister, and I want to find a way to tell her.

It isn't up for us to decide what is right for other adults in their personal relationships. As long as someone isn't being abused, trying to intervene is pointless.

The back-story on this is that my sister has just come out of an awful divorce. She got married too young (she was 21, and had never lived as an adult on her own). Since her divorce, she has not taken any time to be alone. She has searched out sexual experiences of all spectrums. So although this is different -- it seems to be a loving committed relationship -- to me it just feels like an extension of her sexual freedom spree.

Hmm. If it is a "loving committed relationship" then what's the problem? Even if this is an extension of her "sexual freedom spree," what would be wrong with that? Shouldn't every adult be free to be with other adults? But this could be something she has thought about a lot, and it could be what she wants for the rest of her life. Pertaining to her not having had any time to be alone... I enjoyed having time to be alone. I would recommend it to just about everyone. But for so much of human history, many people have done just fine without having had any time alone. For most of US history, most women (and almost as many men) never lived alone. They lived in the family home or relatives until they married, which was often early compared to today. If not living at home, they had a literal roommate.

I hate the way that I feel about this. I feel like I am spewing out the very same sort of hate and bigotry that I condemn. Yet on the same time I feel on a gut level that this is wrong. Mostly just wrong for her, but also wrong. And I can't sort out my feelings; I can't tell if they're a remnant from my upbringing, or if it's my conscience telling me to take responsibility for my kid sister (which I can't, of course; she's an adult).

The good thing is that she's seeking to do what's fair. Unfortunately, the "monogamy is the only way" error has been so thoroughly drilled into her, like so many of us.

From Shore's response...

The first thing I'd recommend is to read this interview, which I did with a woman in a polyamorous (meaning more than two people) relationship: 1 Man, 2 Women in a Polyamorous Relationship. I can't imagine you not finding it helpful.

Like I said, follow the links.

I don't understand why you and your husband are so against meeting the other woman. What do you have to lose? Meeting her means having a lot more information about what your sister's getting involved in. How could that be bad? At any rate, by refusing to meet her you pretty much forfeit your right to have an opinion about your sister's relationship with her. You wouldn't care what someone who's never met him thinks about your husband -- much less your relationship to him -- would you?

Yes!

Here's the thing: Your sister is either going through a phase that will pass, or she's really in love with these two people, and they really love her, and the three of them are going to live happily ever after. Either way, your job remains the same: to love and support your sister.

There are other possibilities. Even if this relationship doesn't last, her sister might continue to live as a polyamorous woman.

Bottom line: You can, and should, share with your sister your concerns, thoughts, fears, prejudices -- all of it. You get to talk about you. But you don't get to talk about her: you don't get to tell her who she is, or who she should be. You can share with her, for instance, that you genuinely can't understand how a person can love two people in the way that most people love one. But you can't say that no one can love two people in the way most people love one. The former is about you, which is fine. The latter is about her and everyone else, which is beyond your rightful purview.

Yes!

Want to have a good relationship with your parent, sibling, or child? BE THERE for them when they come out or have a person or people they want you to meet.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,bisexual,boundaries,coming out,family reaction,LGBT,love,polyamory,prejudice,same-sex,triads

Governor Snyder Goes Eastside for Michigan Supreme Court

Judge David Viviano

For the first time since Justice Neil Reid retired from our High Court in the mid-1950s, a jurist from Macomb County will be seated on the Michigan Supreme Court.  Yesterday, Governor Rick Snyder announced his decision to replace disgraced former Justice Diane Hathaway with Macomb County Circuit's Chief Judge, David Viviano.

Although he comes from a family of jurists, [his father, Antonio Viviano, was a long-serving probate, then circuit court judge, and his sister, Kathryn Viviano, is a sitting judge in the Macomb Circuit Court's family division] David has practiced in several challenging areas of the law and has been outstanding.  In addition to working at the Dickinson Wright law firm in Detroit, he also worked at Jenner and Block in Chicago.  Those are some serious legal chops folks.

We here at the Law Blogger have observed Judge Viviano to be fair, honest, and a judge's judge.  He went to the University of Michigan Law School which, for us, is a big plus.  The attorneys in our law firm have appeared in front of all the Viviano judges.

Of course, an appointment like this one is going to ruffle political feathers.  The Freep, for example, noted that Governor Snyder's appointment was his second consecutive male appointment to the High Court, following Brian Zahra back in 2010.  Along these lines, Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Colleen O'Brien was rumored to be on Snyder's short list.

One thing consistent between the incoming and outgoing justices [Hathaway and Viviano]; they both come from families well-clothed in black robes.  In Judge, soon Justice, Viviano's case, however, that is of less import than the judicial temperament and intellect he will bring to this important job.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: Governor Rick Snyder,Judge David Viviano,Justice Brian Zahra,Justice Neil Reid,Macomb County Circuit Court,Michigan Supreme Court,Oakland County Circuit Court

Change to Comment Settings and Policy

As always, comments are welcome at this blog, and you can comment anonymously if you'd like, or identify yourself or link (no spam, please) to blog, profile, etc.


Per reader request, I have removed word verification, which some people find annoying.

Since I have removed word verification, I will now need to prevent spam by requiring that comments be approved before they appear. this means your comment may not appear for several hours. Feedback is welcome, including disagreement. I only delete/reject/mark as spam: spam, vulgar or hateful attacks, repeated spouting of bigotry from the same person that does not add to the discussion, and the like. I will not reject comments based on disagreement, but if you don't think consenting adults should be free to love each other, then I do not consent to have you repeatedly spout hate on my blog without adding anything to the discourse.

If you want to write to me privately, then either contact me on Facebook, email me at fullmarriageequality at yahoo dot com, or tell me in your comment that you do NOT want it published.  Otherwise, anything you write here is fair game to be used in a subsequent entry.

Read more »

I Added a New Page

I've added a new page. You can see the pages as tabs up there at the top of the blog. I decided I needed a "Welcome" page in addition to the "About" blog.

Read more »

I Added a New Page

I've added a new page. You can see the pages as tabs up there at the top of the blog. I decided I needed a "Welcome" page in addition to the "About" blog.

Read more »

Old Article on Possible GSA Criminal Case

I recently followed a link (can't remember who provided the link... bad blogger, bad blogger) to a news article from way back in the previous millennium (1999) of interest to this blog. It is by Scott Winokur and Tyche Hendricks at sfgate.com and reports from Antioch, California.

An Antioch woman and her 23-year-old son allegedly had an openly sexual relationship that produced a child and another pregnancy and have been charged with incest under a law that could put them in state prison for up to three years.

Three years in prison for having consensual sex with another adult?

Robert Kochly, assistant chief district attorney in Contra Costa County, said Saturday the woman, who is 43, and her son not only haven't denied their alleged relationship, but are defiant about it.

"It is a strange case. This mother and son have taken up as a married couple and she had siblings of his living in the home with her," Kochly said.

The pregnant woman, being held in lieu of $50,000 bail at the West County Justice Center in Richmond, is scheduled to appear in court this week.

Yes, jail a pregnant 43-year-old for the "crime" of having sex. Makes sense, right?

Her son fled with the couple's toddler and two of the woman's other children - his half brothers - ages 13 and 16, according to Deputy District Attorney Paul Sequiera, who is handling the case.

Sequiera said police had several leads on the young man's whereabouts and he was optimistic they would find him within the next few days.

Well, yeah, if law enforcement was going to break up the family, I could see why he'd flee.

According to Sequiera, the man was removed from his mother's custody when he was no more than 5 years old and raised primarily by his grandmother.

The man sought out his mother when he was 18, authorities said, and eventually began living with her.

I did not read this article when I started this blog entry. So this sounds like a case of Genetic Sexual Attraction.

A girl, now 22 months old, was born to the pair, and the woman is pregnant with a second child by her son, Sequiera said.

This is how law enforcement got involved...

The woman's children also include an adult daughter who is a full sister to the 23-year-old son, and a 10-year-old daughter, fathered by another man who also is the father of the two teenage boys.

Kochly said the case came to authorities' attention when the 10-year-old girl told school officials about her mother's relationship.

The girl allegedly was encouraged by her mother to call her half brother "Daddy."

"She just didn't want to go home anymore," Kochly said.

Was she abused/neglected? Probably not, because no mention is made of that. Instead, it could have been a 10-year-old who doesn't like having a grown up half-sister, two teen brothers, a toddler, and a baby on the way to her home. She wouldn't have been the first girl that age to not want to live with that situation. But most who say they don't want to go home because of it are told "tough."

According to police reports, relatives told authorities the mother and son have been romantically involved for several years, sleeping in the same room and showering together.

And the problem is??? There isn't a problem.

Sequiera said he has never seen a similar case in the 15 years he has worked in the Contra Costa County District Attorney's Office.

People who are happy with their home life usually don't contact law enforcement to put that home life in jeopardy.

He added the office generally does not prosecute sex crimes between consenting adults.

"We quit being moral police a long time ago," he said.

Good. Consensual sex should not be a crime in the first place.

"The reason I decided to prosecute was because they had a child and another on the way. It's not really a victimless crime anymore. There's a reason it's against the law, because birth defects go up 10 times."

That number was pulled out from a certain dark place in the anatomy.

Now read this very carefully...

Sequiera said there is some indication from relatives that the toddler may suffer from physical and mental handicaps.

"What's going to make my decision on what position we take in the case is whether that 2-year-old has birth defects," he said. "If they sentenced that child to a life with a handicap, that's something different."

I hope the defense was able to use that statement, because it is outrageous. Whether or not a parent is going to be prosecuted depends on if their child has "birth defects" or not?!? It is legal for another couple to have sex and children even if they have four children already and all of them have birth defects. Where's the equality? If the toddler did have challenges, it could have been due to any number of factors, including the age of the mother.


STOP THE PRESSES! I was about to publish this when I found a subsequent article from the same website, from 2001 (so about a year and a half to two years later), written by Charlie Goodyear.

An Antioch woman and her adult son whose incestuous relationship resulted in a child are accused of violating terms of their probation for convictions of child endangerment last year.

Probation, eh? What terrible thing did they do to violate probation?

The unusual case was reopened after the county Social Services Department reported receiving a taped phone message in December in which the 45-year-old woman and her son, 24, were discussing custody options for their 3-year-old daughter, conceived through the illegal relationship. Officials believe the defendants were together while the call was made to the county department.

"Somebody heard the message and was convinced it was the guy's voice in the background," said prosecutor Paul Sequiera.

Oh, no! You mean two adults might have been in the same room, discussing their daughter?!? Horrible!

The Chronicle has not identified the defendants in order to protect the privacy of the girl and five other minor children belonging to the woman. All of the children have been placed in foster care.

Why???

Although incest charges are rarely filed in California, prosecutors decided they had to act because the illegal relationship produced a child.

But when authorities learned last year that the child was not suffering from any long-term genetic disability, the defendants were allowed to plead no contest to child endangerment charges.

The only thing endangering the children from what I can tell is taking them away from their parents and putting them in foster care.

As part of the plea, they were sentenced to two years in state prison. That term was suspended by Lindenbaum, who agreed to place the defendants on five years probation with an order that they stay away from each other.

Ridiculous. Let's follow the reasoning here for a moment. It's illegal for them to have sex because they are genetic mother and son, and they are "supposed" to have a different kind of relationship. So what happens? They are ordered to have no relationship whatsoever. Now the daughter does not get to have her parents together because of some outsiders ordering that. So tell me again about how family relationships are supposed to be? The children are taken away and placed in foster care, which is what happened to the grown man when he was a child, putting at least some of them in circumstances where they may end up experiencing Genetic Sexual Attraction, too! Although, fewer people know about GSA back then.

Why couldn't they have just been left alone?

Lawyers said the judge was unlikely to send either defendant to prison for violating a stay-away order unless the conduct had caused harm to the girl.

"Basically, Judge Lindenbaum's attitude is that these people better not do anything that negatively impacts the kid," said defense attorney Stuart Willis, who represents the son.

Uh, you mean like taking her away from her parents because they have consensual sex with each other?

Willis said his client has not been living with his mother. Both defendants sat in different rows of the courtroom audience and did not look at one another while waiting for their case to be called, lawyers said.

Contra Costa Deputy Public Defender Paul Mariano said county officials dislike his client and were eager to report her to the probation department for any violation, however minor.

"They were morally offended by the nature of the offense," Mariano said. "But Judge Lindenbaum treated it appropriately."

They should have been left alone. This is yet another example of why full marriage equality is needed sooner rather than later.

I don't know what the outcome was all of this. Perhaps some research would provide more information? It is difficult without names. I hope it turned out well for the entire family. If anyone recognizes this case and wants to update me, feel free to comment or to send me email at fullmarriageequality at yahoo dot com.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,breaking up homes,California,children,consanguineous,courts,family reaction,GSA,incest,lack of equality harms,love,media,mother-son,pregnancy,prosecution,reunion

Old Article on Possible GSA Criminal Case

I recently followed a link (can't remember who provided the link... bad blogger, bad blogger) to a news article from way back in the previous millennium (1999) of interest to this blog. It is by Scott Winokur and Tyche Hendricks at sfgate.com and reports from Antioch, California.

An Antioch woman and her 23-year-old son allegedly had an openly sexual relationship that produced a child and another pregnancy and have been charged with incest under a law that could put them in state prison for up to three years.

Three years in prison for having consensual sex with another adult?

Robert Kochly, assistant chief district attorney in Contra Costa County, said Saturday the woman, who is 43, and her son not only haven't denied their alleged relationship, but are defiant about it.

"It is a strange case. This mother and son have taken up as a married couple and she had siblings of his living in the home with her," Kochly said.

The pregnant woman, being held in lieu of $50,000 bail at the West County Justice Center in Richmond, is scheduled to appear in court this week.

Yes, jail a pregnant 43-year-old for the "crime" of having sex. Makes sense, right?

Her son fled with the couple's toddler and two of the woman's other children - his half brothers - ages 13 and 16, according to Deputy District Attorney Paul Sequiera, who is handling the case.

Sequiera said police had several leads on the young man's whereabouts and he was optimistic they would find him within the next few days.

Well, yeah, if law enforcement was going to break up the family, I could see why he'd flee.

According to Sequiera, the man was removed from his mother's custody when he was no more than 5 years old and raised primarily by his grandmother.

The man sought out his mother when he was 18, authorities said, and eventually began living with her.

I did not read this article when I started this blog entry. So this sounds like a case of Genetic Sexual Attraction.

A girl, now 22 months old, was born to the pair, and the woman is pregnant with a second child by her son, Sequiera said.

This is how law enforcement got involved...

The woman's children also include an adult daughter who is a full sister to the 23-year-old son, and a 10-year-old daughter, fathered by another man who also is the father of the two teenage boys.

Kochly said the case came to authorities' attention when the 10-year-old girl told school officials about her mother's relationship.

The girl allegedly was encouraged by her mother to call her half brother "Daddy."

"She just didn't want to go home anymore," Kochly said.

Was she abused/neglected? Probably not, because no mention is made of that. Instead, it could have been a 10-year-old who doesn't like having a grown up half-sister, two teen brothers, a toddler, and a baby on the way to her home. She wouldn't have been the first girl that age to not want to live with that situation. But most who say they don't want to go home because of it are told "tough."

According to police reports, relatives told authorities the mother and son have been romantically involved for several years, sleeping in the same room and showering together.

And the problem is??? There isn't a problem.

Sequiera said he has never seen a similar case in the 15 years he has worked in the Contra Costa County District Attorney's Office.

People who are happy with their home life usually don't contact law enforcement to put that home life in jeopardy.

He added the office generally does not prosecute sex crimes between consenting adults.

"We quit being moral police a long time ago," he said.

Good. Consensual sex should not be a crime in the first place.

"The reason I decided to prosecute was because they had a child and another on the way. It's not really a victimless crime anymore. There's a reason it's against the law, because birth defects go up 10 times."

That number was pulled out from a certain dark place in the anatomy.

Now read this very carefully...

Sequiera said there is some indication from relatives that the toddler may suffer from physical and mental handicaps.

"What's going to make my decision on what position we take in the case is whether that 2-year-old has birth defects," he said. "If they sentenced that child to a life with a handicap, that's something different."

I hope the defense was able to use that statement, because it is outrageous. Whether or not a parent is going to be prosecuted depends on if their child has "birth defects" or not?!? It is legal for another couple to have sex and children even if they have four children already and all of them have birth defects. Where's the equality? If the toddler did have challenges, it could have been due to any number of factors, including the age of the mother.


STOP THE PRESSES! I was about to publish this when I found a subsequent article from the same website, from 2001 (so about a year and a half to two years later), written by Charlie Goodyear.

An Antioch woman and her adult son whose incestuous relationship resulted in a child are accused of violating terms of their probation for convictions of child endangerment last year.

Probation, eh? What terrible thing did they do to violate probation?

The unusual case was reopened after the county Social Services Department reported receiving a taped phone message in December in which the 45-year-old woman and her son, 24, were discussing custody options for their 3-year-old daughter, conceived through the illegal relationship. Officials believe the defendants were together while the call was made to the county department.

"Somebody heard the message and was convinced it was the guy's voice in the background," said prosecutor Paul Sequiera.

Oh, no! You mean two adults might have been in the same room, discussing their daughter?!? Horrible!

The Chronicle has not identified the defendants in order to protect the privacy of the girl and five other minor children belonging to the woman. All of the children have been placed in foster care.

Why???

Although incest charges are rarely filed in California, prosecutors decided they had to act because the illegal relationship produced a child.

But when authorities learned last year that the child was not suffering from any long-term genetic disability, the defendants were allowed to plead no contest to child endangerment charges.

The only thing endangering the children from what I can tell is taking them away from their parents and putting them in foster care.

As part of the plea, they were sentenced to two years in state prison. That term was suspended by Lindenbaum, who agreed to place the defendants on five years probation with an order that they stay away from each other.

Ridiculous. Let's follow the reasoning here for a moment. It's illegal for them to have sex because they are genetic mother and son, and they are "supposed" to have a different kind of relationship. So what happens? They are ordered to have no relationship whatsoever. Now the daughter does not get to have her parents together because of some outsiders ordering that. So tell me again about how family relationships are supposed to be? The children are taken away and placed in foster care, which is what happened to the grown man when he was a child, putting at least some of them in circumstances where they may end up experiencing Genetic Sexual Attraction, too! Although, fewer people know about GSA back then.

Why couldn't they have just been left alone?

Lawyers said the judge was unlikely to send either defendant to prison for violating a stay-away order unless the conduct had caused harm to the girl.

"Basically, Judge Lindenbaum's attitude is that these people better not do anything that negatively impacts the kid," said defense attorney Stuart Willis, who represents the son.

Uh, you mean like taking her away from her parents because they have consensual sex with each other?

Willis said his client has not been living with his mother. Both defendants sat in different rows of the courtroom audience and did not look at one another while waiting for their case to be called, lawyers said.

Contra Costa Deputy Public Defender Paul Mariano said county officials dislike his client and were eager to report her to the probation department for any violation, however minor.

"They were morally offended by the nature of the offense," Mariano said. "But Judge Lindenbaum treated it appropriately."

They should have been left alone. This is yet another example of why full marriage equality is needed sooner rather than later.

I don't know what the outcome was all of this. Perhaps some research would provide more information? It is difficult without names. I hope it turned out well for the entire family. If anyone recognizes this case and wants to update me, feel free to comment or to send me email at fullmarriageequality at yahoo dot com.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,breaking up homes,California,children,consanguineous,courts,family reaction,GSA,incest,lack of equality harms,love,media,mother-son,pregnancy,prosecution,reunion

Video: Another Discussion of the Polygamous Freedom to Marry

These guys can't come up with a good reason to deny the polygamous freedom to marry. That's because there isn't one.



More and more people are thinking it through and realizing that full marriage equality makes sense, and that the response to bigots who try to scare people about slippery slopes when it comes to the same-gender freedom to marry should be "What's wrong with letting consenting adults have their right to marry?"

Note that one of them brings up legal sanctions against adultery. I'm not aware of any place in the US where there remain any enforceable criminal laws against adultery, perhaps defined in some ridiculous laws as having sex with someone other than your lawfully wedded spouse (which criminalizes threesomes, polyamory, open marriages, etc.) Nor is adultery considered by the court in divorce proceedings in states that have no-fault divorce. There are some states that still allow people to sue for "alienation of affection," but that is rare. Ultimately, cheating should not be a matter for the courts anyway. But whether or not something is cheating is up to the agreements made by the adults involved. For a strictly monogamous couple, cheating might include one of them sexting someone else. For people in an open marriage, it might be one spouse not informing the other of a sexual encounter had with another person. For a triad in polyfidelity, it might be one of them secretly meeting with a fourth person. None of this should be something for law enforcement to deal with.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,boundaries,cheating,freedom to marry,media,polyamory,polygamy

Video: Another Discussion of the Polygamous Freedom to Marry

These guys can't come up with a good reason to deny the polygamous freedom to marry. That's because there isn't one.



More and more people are thinking it through and realizing that full marriage equality makes sense, and that the response to bigots who try to scare people about slippery slopes when it comes to the same-gender freedom to marry should be "What's wrong with letting consenting adults have their right to marry?"

Note that one of them brings up legal sanctions against adultery. I'm not aware of any place in the US where there remain any enforceable criminal laws against adultery, perhaps defined in some ridiculous laws as having sex with someone other than your lawfully wedded spouse (which criminalizes threesomes, polyamory, open marriages, etc.) Nor is adultery considered by the court in divorce proceedings in states that have no-fault divorce. There are some states that still allow people to sue for "alienation of affection," but that is rare. Ultimately, cheating should not be a matter for the courts anyway. But whether or not something is cheating is up to the agreements made by the adults involved. For a strictly monogamous couple, cheating might include one of them sexting someone else. For people in an open marriage, it might be one spouse not informing the other of a sexual encounter had with another person. For a triad in polyfidelity, it might be one of them secretly meeting with a fourth person. None of this should be something for law enforcement to deal with.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,boundaries,cheating,freedom to marry,media,polyamory,polygamy

Column at Major Newspaper Calls For Polygamous Freedom to Marry

Many thanks to Peg McEntee at sltrib.com for speaking up for the polygamous freedom to marry, which is essential in order to reach full marriage equality.

And, as a strong believer in the right of same-sex couples to marry, it came to me that willing adults who enter into plural marriage should have the same rights.

Having covered polygamy in Utah for more than two decades, I’m acutely aware of the abuse that can and has occurred in polygamous enclaves.

Of course, that abuse is not isolated to polygamous communities, nor is it caused by polygamy. Removing laws and stigmas against consensual adult relationships will make it easier to prosecute abusers, because witnesses and victims will be more willing to work with law enforcement.

My support for gay marriage hinges on these factors: a mature, loving couple should have the same rights and protections as straight couples and to have governments recognize their unions; and that each individual enters into the relationship without financial or ecclesiastical pressure.

Thank you!

Who am I to oppose the choices of two women who join in matrimony, or two or more who choose to enter what now is called a "spiritual" marriage with one man?

This world has seen uncountable changes in customs and mores, and it surely will see more as time goes by. Let adults be adults, committed and accountable.

I have friends who ask if their gay marriage has ever affected my straight one. And I ask them if mine has affected theirs. The answer is always no.

The staff of more news organizations need to speak up in favor of the rights of an adult to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults. Yes, that includes polyamory and polygamy as well as monogamy and other forms.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,boundaries,FLDS,freedom to marry,law,media,polyamory,polygamy,Utah

Column at Major Newspaper Calls For Polygamous Freedom to Marry

Many thanks to Peg McEntee at sltrib.com for speaking up for the polygamous freedom to marry, which is essential in order to reach full marriage equality.

And, as a strong believer in the right of same-sex couples to marry, it came to me that willing adults who enter into plural marriage should have the same rights.

Having covered polygamy in Utah for more than two decades, I’m acutely aware of the abuse that can and has occurred in polygamous enclaves.

Of course, that abuse is not isolated to polygamous communities, nor is it caused by polygamy. Removing laws and stigmas against consensual adult relationships will make it easier to prosecute abusers, because witnesses and victims will be more willing to work with law enforcement.

My support for gay marriage hinges on these factors: a mature, loving couple should have the same rights and protections as straight couples and to have governments recognize their unions; and that each individual enters into the relationship without financial or ecclesiastical pressure.

Thank you!

Who am I to oppose the choices of two women who join in matrimony, or two or more who choose to enter what now is called a "spiritual" marriage with one man?

This world has seen uncountable changes in customs and mores, and it surely will see more as time goes by. Let adults be adults, committed and accountable.

I have friends who ask if their gay marriage has ever affected my straight one. And I ask them if mine has affected theirs. The answer is always no.

The staff of more news organizations need to speak up in favor of the rights of an adult to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults. Yes, that includes polyamory and polygamy as well as monogamy and other forms.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,boundaries,FLDS,freedom to marry,law,media,polyamory,polygamy,Utah

A Young Adult Love in Hiding

By my count, this is the nineteenth ongoing relationship I've covered through exclusive interviews in which the lovers are denied the freedom to marry.

"Anonymous" is a young woman who has a consanguinamorous relationship with her brother, who is two years older.

Read this interview and ask yourself if there is one good reason their rights to love each other the way they want should be denied.

*****

FULL MARRIAGE EQUALITY: Describe your background.

Anonymous: I'm a female college student living in the southern US. I'm a single college student with one brother, with whom I'm involved. I live with a female roommate.

FME: Describe your childhood and relationship with your brother prior to the relationship you have now.

We were always close, and most affectionate. We never went through any serious sibling rivalry and were always like friends to each other.

FME: How did sexual affection become a part of your relationship?

It just sort of happened (laughs). Sounds lame but it's true. We had always been affectionate in an innocent way and I think we always had a hidden curiosity about moving it forward, but never did. We were chilling at home on the couch and we both had a little bit to drink, but were not drunk. I think we just got really comfortable with each other and lost sight of how far things were going. It's kind of blurry where the line got crossed. At one point we were curled up together on the couch, which we'd done before and it's been totally innocent. Our heads had been leaning together and we both turned at almost the same moment. I can't remember who kissed who first but it happened. There was no intercourse, but things were a bit awkward for the next few days.

FME: Can you describe your feelings during that?

It was confusing. It took a while to register what was happening, and when it did I found I was so turned on I didn't want to stop, but I knew I should have. I was a bit conflicted, but we couldn't pull away.

FME: Some people say sibling eroticism is inherently kinky, but I have found that for many siblings it doesn't feel kinky. What about for you?

Not really kinky, but there is the "taboo" aspect that sometimes turns us on, but as time goes on that "taboo" has faded and it feels normal.

FME: Describe your relationship now. Do you see each other as siblings or lovers, or are those two roles inseparable at this point? Are you siblings-with-benefits, girlfriend/boyfriend, soulmates, what?

Its been a couple years, and it's hard to say. We know we cant openly be in a relationship and we don't want to hurt our family. I guess you could say siblings with benefits, but then our relationship has presented problems when seeing other people so its a bit unclear.

FME: Does anyone in your life know the full, true nature/history of your relationship?

No. I have one friend who knows and shes understanding but even then I'm paranoid about her knowing.

FME: Having to hide the full nature of your relationship from some people can be a disadvantage. Are there any other disadvantages? Conversely, do you think siblings  have some advantages and some things better than unrelated lovers?

The hiding and lack of acceptance is the hardest thing. I think we have a closer emotional bond than unrelated lovers have.

FME: What do you want to say to people who disapprove of your relationship, or disapprove of anyone having this kind of relationship? What's your reply to those who would say that this is a brother preying on a sister (and that you can’t really consent)?

It many cases it is, but you have to accept that we are both legally adults and respect and love each other too much as siblings to "prey" on each other.

FME: If you could get legally married, and that included protections against discrimination, harassment, etc., would you?

That's hard to say, I'd like to say yes, but even then marriage is a huge step regardless of the type of relationship

FME: What advice do you have for someone who may be experiencing feelings for a sibling? What advice do you have for family members and friends who think or know that siblings they know are having these feelings for each other?

It's OK, you are normal and there is nothing wrong with your feelings. Be accepting and willing to listen. But never let romantic love cloud your family bonds.

   
FME: Anything else you want to add?

If this helps anyone, I am very glad!

*****


There you have it. Two consenting adults who are still young, but should be free to pursue their relationship, whatever form it will take.

Why should they be denied their rights? There’s no good reason.We need to adopt full marriage equality sooner rather than later, so that an adult is free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage any and all consenting adults. Real people are being hurt because of a denial of their basic human rights to love each other freely.

You can read other interviews I have done here.

If you are in a relationship like this and are looking for help or others you can talk with, read this.

If you are a family member or friend of someone who is in or may be in such a relationship, please read this.

Thank you to Anonymous and her brother for sharing their situation with us.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,brother-sister,consanguineous,love,siblings

A Young Adult Love in Hiding

By my count, this is the nineteenth ongoing relationship I've covered through exclusive interviews in which the lovers are denied the freedom to marry.

"Anonymous" is a young woman who has a consanguinamorous relationship with her brother, who is two years older.

Read this interview and ask yourself if there is one good reason their rights to love each other the way they want should be denied.

*****

FULL MARRIAGE EQUALITY: Describe your background.

Anonymous: I'm a female college student living in the southern US. I'm a single college student with one brother, with whom I'm involved. I live with a female roommate.

FME: Describe your childhood and relationship with your brother prior to the relationship you have now.

We were always close, and most affectionate. We never went through any serious sibling rivalry and were always like friends to each other.

FME: How did sexual affection become a part of your relationship?

It just sort of happened (laughs). Sounds lame but it's true. We had always been affectionate in an innocent way and I think we always had a hidden curiosity about moving it forward, but never did. We were chilling at home on the couch and we both had a little bit to drink, but were not drunk. I think we just got really comfortable with each other and lost sight of how far things were going. It's kind of blurry where the line got crossed. At one point we were curled up together on the couch, which we'd done before and it's been totally innocent. Our heads had been leaning together and we both turned at almost the same moment. I can't remember who kissed who first but it happened. There was no intercourse, but things were a bit awkward for the next few days.

FME: Can you describe your feelings during that?

It was confusing. It took a while to register what was happening, and when it did I found I was so turned on I didn't want to stop, but I knew I should have. I was a bit conflicted, but we couldn't pull away.

FME: Some people say sibling eroticism is inherently kinky, but I have found that for many siblings it doesn't feel kinky. What about for you?

Not really kinky, but there is the "taboo" aspect that sometimes turns us on, but as time goes on that "taboo" has faded and it feels normal.

FME: Describe your relationship now. Do you see each other as siblings or lovers, or are those two roles inseparable at this point? Are you siblings-with-benefits, girlfriend/boyfriend, soulmates, what?

Its been a couple years, and it's hard to say. We know we cant openly be in a relationship and we don't want to hurt our family. I guess you could say siblings with benefits, but then our relationship has presented problems when seeing other people so its a bit unclear.

FME: Does anyone in your life know the full, true nature/history of your relationship?

No. I have one friend who knows and shes understanding but even then I'm paranoid about her knowing.

FME: Having to hide the full nature of your relationship from some people can be a disadvantage. Are there any other disadvantages? Conversely, do you think siblings  have some advantages and some things better than unrelated lovers?

The hiding and lack of acceptance is the hardest thing. I think we have a closer emotional bond than unrelated lovers have.

FME: What do you want to say to people who disapprove of your relationship, or disapprove of anyone having this kind of relationship? What's your reply to those who would say that this is a brother preying on a sister (and that you can’t really consent)?

It many cases it is, but you have to accept that we are both legally adults and respect and love each other too much as siblings to "prey" on each other.

FME: If you could get legally married, and that included protections against discrimination, harassment, etc., would you?

That's hard to say, I'd like to say yes, but even then marriage is a huge step regardless of the type of relationship

FME: What advice do you have for someone who may be experiencing feelings for a sibling? What advice do you have for family members and friends who think or know that siblings they know are having these feelings for each other?

It's OK, you are normal and there is nothing wrong with your feelings. Be accepting and willing to listen. But never let romantic love cloud your family bonds.

   
FME: Anything else you want to add?

If this helps anyone, I am very glad!

*****


There you have it. Two consenting adults who are still young, but should be free to pursue their relationship, whatever form it will take.

Why should they be denied their rights? There’s no good reason.We need to adopt full marriage equality sooner rather than later, so that an adult is free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage any and all consenting adults. Real people are being hurt because of a denial of their basic human rights to love each other freely.

You can read other interviews I have done here.

If you are in a relationship like this and are looking for help or others you can talk with, read this.

If you are a family member or friend of someone who is in or may be in such a relationship, please read this.

Thank you to Anonymous and her brother for sharing their situation with us.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,brother-sister,consanguineous,love,siblings

We Get Letters

Well, comments really. Here are some recent comments of note.

In response to something I posted about half-siblings defying bigotry, Anonymous wrote...

oh my.. i have a enormous amount of sympathy.. i know someone in the same boat, only he's the older and shes younger. Problem is the same. Everyone thinks he's a screw up because he hasn't had a girlfriend for so long and how hes getting older... lol well it would appear that way from the outside. Poor guy has been tormented for years about "he's gonna die a virgin" and "he must be pathetic in bed" etc etc.. nothing could be more incorrect. They've been together for YEARS, and she's told me their life behind closed doors is amazing, and when they are together they are truly an amazing couple. I know because I've seen it. Yet everyone around them are growing up and growing old, are married, some beat each other, some are horrible to their children, some are just outright POS's, while this couple is a beautiful one-yet pretty much illegal everywhere and is extremely taboo in our society. Its horrible that they are ridiculed and made fun of, but sadly at the moment thats how it is. We have to get this straightened out! (lol sheesh and gays thought they had it bad...;D)

Prejudiced discrimination is a problem and is hurtful whether it is directed at an interracial couple, a gay couple, or a polyamorous triad, or a consanguinamorous relationship. Consenting adults shouldn't have to hide their love. The people Anonymous described could involve other people as "beards" (and some people have done that very thing,) but would that be fair to anyone? No, not unless the beards were informed and agreeable, perhaps having some need of theirs met by the arrangement.


Liz continues to be generous with comments and her own experiences. She wrote after a posting about the two main paths to consanguinamory...

I was so relieved that our parents did not try to force my brother and I apart when they learned we were together. He and I have always been close, and after we became intimate I realized that I could not imagine life without him by my side. I cannot imagine what it must be like for those people who want to be in a relationship with a family member but are unable to do so for one reason or another. I strongly agree with what you have said, especially the last paragraph. My wish would be for everyone to be with the one they love, whomever it may be, so they can all have happy lives together.

After an entry talking about children born to such relationships, she wrote...

This does seem to be the number one reason many people are against brother - sister relationships. My brother and I had many discussions and did a lot of research before deciding to have a child together. Once I was pregnant I made sure to see my doctor regularly to make sure everything was ok. Our daughter is fine - happy and healthy. I now know we did the right thing, and we do plan on having more children. My point is that the belief that every incest child will have something wrong with him or her is just wrong, and couples like us should make the decision to have children or not with honest facts, not mistaken beliefs.

We're always happy to get comments like these. People need to see the truth about these relationships. They do exist, and the biggest problem with them is the prejudice of others. There's no reason to criminalize this love or deny these lovers the freedom to marry.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,boundaries,brother-sister,coming out,consanguineous,family reaction,freedom to marry,GSA,lack of equality harms,love,prejudice,siblings

We Get Letters

Well, comments really. Here are some recent comments of note.

In response to something I posted about half-siblings defying bigotry, Anonymous wrote...

oh my.. i have a enormous amount of sympathy.. i know someone in the same boat, only he's the older and shes younger. Problem is the same. Everyone thinks he's a screw up because he hasn't had a girlfriend for so long and how hes getting older... lol well it would appear that way from the outside. Poor guy has been tormented for years about "he's gonna die a virgin" and "he must be pathetic in bed" etc etc.. nothing could be more incorrect. They've been together for YEARS, and she's told me their life behind closed doors is amazing, and when they are together they are truly an amazing couple. I know because I've seen it. Yet everyone around them are growing up and growing old, are married, some beat each other, some are horrible to their children, some are just outright POS's, while this couple is a beautiful one-yet pretty much illegal everywhere and is extremely taboo in our society. Its horrible that they are ridiculed and made fun of, but sadly at the moment thats how it is. We have to get this straightened out! (lol sheesh and gays thought they had it bad...;D)

Prejudiced discrimination is a problem and is hurtful whether it is directed at an interracial couple, a gay couple, or a polyamorous triad, or a consanguinamorous relationship. Consenting adults shouldn't have to hide their love. The people Anonymous described could involve other people as "beards" (and some people have done that very thing,) but would that be fair to anyone? No, not unless the beards were informed and agreeable, perhaps having some need of theirs met by the arrangement.


Liz continues to be generous with comments and her own experiences. She wrote after a posting about the two main paths to consanguinamory...

I was so relieved that our parents did not try to force my brother and I apart when they learned we were together. He and I have always been close, and after we became intimate I realized that I could not imagine life without him by my side. I cannot imagine what it must be like for those people who want to be in a relationship with a family member but are unable to do so for one reason or another. I strongly agree with what you have said, especially the last paragraph. My wish would be for everyone to be with the one they love, whomever it may be, so they can all have happy lives together.

After an entry talking about children born to such relationships, she wrote...

This does seem to be the number one reason many people are against brother - sister relationships. My brother and I had many discussions and did a lot of research before deciding to have a child together. Once I was pregnant I made sure to see my doctor regularly to make sure everything was ok. Our daughter is fine - happy and healthy. I now know we did the right thing, and we do plan on having more children. My point is that the belief that every incest child will have something wrong with him or her is just wrong, and couples like us should make the decision to have children or not with honest facts, not mistaken beliefs.

We're always happy to get comments like these. People need to see the truth about these relationships. They do exist, and the biggest problem with them is the prejudice of others. There's no reason to criminalize this love or deny these lovers the freedom to marry.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,boundaries,brother-sister,coming out,consanguineous,family reaction,freedom to marry,GSA,lack of equality harms,love,prejudice,siblings

LGBT Plus P?

I'm bumping up this entry because of this article: "Therapists Argue To Replace 'LGBT' With More Inclusive 'GSD'" at queerty.com. GSD means Gender and Sexual Diversities. I like it. I will think about it some more. Reminded me of this...

Over at Freethinking For Dummies is this article about poly being the “new queer.”

Polyamory is much more than having multiple sex partners. Yes, the sex part is important, but not nearly as important as the emotional aspect. To an outsider, polyamory is often seen as an expedient to justifying having multiple sex partners, in the same way they consider bi-sexuality to be. Of course, as those who are bi-sexual can tell you, this isn’t an expedient, it truly a way of being. Being polyamorous is what we feel, it defines how we are attracted romantically, sexually and emotionally to others.

More people should learn that this is so.

I was brought up to believe in traditional gender roles and traditional marriage, but even in my teens and early twenties I felt that there was something wrong with me because I often found that I was in love with more than one woman at the same time. I’m not talking lust here, we all have that, but love. I truly loved two women at the same time. Loved them deeply. It was no more sexual than any other experience of being in love.

I found myself in this situation several times. Before I was married, I resolved this by deciding not to get involved with either woman, because I didn’t feel right choosing one over the other. After I was married, my solution was to ignore what I was feeling for the woman who I wasn’t married to, to the point of breaking off all communication so that I didn’t let my emotions get out of had for fear of breaking my vows or ruining my marriage.

Not having full marriage equality means that some people try to fit into the little box when they aren’t suited to it. And then they can’t do it anymore, coming out as gay or poly or whatever. More people get hurt and often the marriage ends. Wouldn’t it be better to allow people to marry the person or persons they love in the first place?

Even within the community of atheists and freethinkers I’ve been hesitant to come out as ploy for fear of rejection, but I have decided that, as with my atheism, I must be who I am and let people know that. I’ve hidden who I am for far too long and I refuse to do it any longer.

Why is there so much bigotry?

So, you can now add poly to your definition of queer. We are here and we face as much social discrimination as those in the GLBT community, except that we are still where they were 30 years or more ago.

I’m willing to wade in and take on the fight. I’m hoping those of you out there reading this will learn more about polyamory and support us.

I’m right here.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,help,LGBT,polyamory

LGBT Plus P?

I'm bumping up this entry because of this article: "Therapists Argue To Replace 'LGBT' With More Inclusive 'GSD'" at queerty.com. GSD means Gender and Sexual Diversities. I like it. I will think about it some more. Reminded me of this...

Over at Freethinking For Dummies is this article about poly being the “new queer.”

Polyamory is much more than having multiple sex partners. Yes, the sex part is important, but not nearly as important as the emotional aspect. To an outsider, polyamory is often seen as an expedient to justifying having multiple sex partners, in the same way they consider bi-sexuality to be. Of course, as those who are bi-sexual can tell you, this isn’t an expedient, it truly a way of being. Being polyamorous is what we feel, it defines how we are attracted romantically, sexually and emotionally to others.

More people should learn that this is so.

I was brought up to believe in traditional gender roles and traditional marriage, but even in my teens and early twenties I felt that there was something wrong with me because I often found that I was in love with more than one woman at the same time. I’m not talking lust here, we all have that, but love. I truly loved two women at the same time. Loved them deeply. It was no more sexual than any other experience of being in love.

I found myself in this situation several times. Before I was married, I resolved this by deciding not to get involved with either woman, because I didn’t feel right choosing one over the other. After I was married, my solution was to ignore what I was feeling for the woman who I wasn’t married to, to the point of breaking off all communication so that I didn’t let my emotions get out of had for fear of breaking my vows or ruining my marriage.

Not having full marriage equality means that some people try to fit into the little box when they aren’t suited to it. And then they can’t do it anymore, coming out as gay or poly or whatever. More people get hurt and often the marriage ends. Wouldn’t it be better to allow people to marry the person or persons they love in the first place?

Even within the community of atheists and freethinkers I’ve been hesitant to come out as ploy for fear of rejection, but I have decided that, as with my atheism, I must be who I am and let people know that. I’ve hidden who I am for far too long and I refuse to do it any longer.

Why is there so much bigotry?

So, you can now add poly to your definition of queer. We are here and we face as much social discrimination as those in the GLBT community, except that we are still where they were 30 years or more ago.

I’m willing to wade in and take on the fight. I’m hoping those of you out there reading this will learn more about polyamory and support us.

I’m right here.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,help,LGBT,polyamory

Adultery and the Paternity Act

The Sixth Commandment proscribes adultery unequivocally: "Thou shall not commit adultery".  Many people consider the Ten Commandments to be the laws of God.  The subsequent laws of man, however, do not always follow suit.

In 2011, the Michigan Legislature amended [rewrote] the Paternity Act to open the door, slightly, for an unwed biological father who sires a child with a married woman.  The bachelor's parenting rights, however, are contingent upon the consent of the mother.  

The new paternity laws have given rise to a few cases that have garnered media attention.  Fathers that have availed themselves of the new law in order to correct one of the more painful gaps in our tranditional family laws; denying standing to any putative father who's baby-momma was married at the time of birth. 

The new paternity leglislation basically thanks the bio-dad for his sperm donation, but does not afford him any substantive parenting rights without the mother's consent.  If the bachelor can offer some proof to the family court that he was clueless about the baby momma's marital status, he has standing to bring a claim under the paternity act.

Aaron Grimes filed a case when his relationship blew-up.  Grimes conducted a two-year relationship with a woman he knew was married.  The couple took trips together, attended family functions, and otherwise held themselves out as a couple.  According to Grimes, she never wore her wedding ring.

When the baby was born, the mother had a change of heart according to Grimes; she reconciled with her husband, hired a lawyer, and has dened Grimes any contact with his son. 

Father's subsequent paternity cause of action was immediately dismissed by the Wayne County Circuit Court.  Dad is considering challenging the provisions of the new paternity act.

Compare Grimes' situation with Daniel Quinn, who, unlike Grimes, was able to claim cluelessness about his baby mamma's marital status; she was [secretly] married to a man doing time in prison.  Under the present legislative scheme, the bachelor's knowledge of the marriage is the deciding factor.   Unless the alleged father is in the dark, the baby momma is driving the bus.

So the difference goes to the heart of modern adultery.  To commit the sin, indeed, the felony, of adultery, one must presumably have the "mens rea"; the proverbial guilty mind.  If you do not know if your woman is married, are you nevertheless comitting the sin of adultery in the eyes of God; in the eyes of the law?

This is what the Michigan legislature has recently contended with; an imperfect piece of legislation, to be sure.  We here at the Law Blogger wish that the new act was more direct in advising the court to consider the best interests of the child rather than the relative standing of the parents.  Also, the paternity act should first "disestablish" the rights of the baby momma's husband prior to allowing an alleged father to proceed on a paternity claim.

The one-year limitation for a claim to be filed seems quick and too arbitrary; often, an alleged or putative father would have no reason to suspect his baby's momma is married.  Closing the door so fast on a bio-dad seems harsh.

Thus, the drama is destined to continue.  To men: the best course of action is to be very sure of the marital status of your partner prior to beginning the procreation process.  If you are in the position of Mr. Grimes, however, and you know that your partner is married, you need to also know that the current paternity act allows her to drive the bus when the baby comes.

To women: be sure to keep your child's best interests in mind and ask whether it is better in the long-run for your baby to know his or her true paternity. 

www.waterfordlegal.com
info@waterfordlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: Aaron Grimes,adultery,child custody,Daniel Quinn,family court,family law lawyer,paternity act,Ten Commandments,Wayne County Family Court

What About the Children?

Abdullah asked a very common question…

How likely is it that brother-sister incest will produce a healthy child?

Taking the question exactly as it is written, a very small percentage of sexual encounters result in a live birth. Only sexual encounters that result in a healthy sperm entering a healthy egg and fertilizing it, followed by successful implantation in the uterus, followed by gestation until viability will produce a healthy child. (This is leaving aside reproductive technologies, donors, and surrogates.)

But I suspect that the question the person was really asking is that if a brother and sister have a pregnancy that comes to term and is successfully delivered, what are the chances of the child being healthy?

Most likely, with any given brother and sister, the child will be healthy. With any birth, there is a chance of the child having a birth defect or genetic problem. All it takes is for a genetic problem of one or both parents being passed along, or a the embryo developing one on her own. If two people have the same genetic problem, as siblings may, there is an increase in the chance that their child will have the same problem in comparison to the general population. However, that increase in chance will still mean that the overall chance is a minority chance.

Anyone concerned about these things should have genetic testing and counseling. People who are not close relatives can also pass along health problems.

We do not deny people their freedom to marry or their sexual or reproductive rights based on their lack of ability to birth healthy children or lack of intention to birth children. We do not make criminals out of them based on those things, either.

There are healthy, intelligent, attractive people whose birth parents are genetic siblings. We all know some, whether we know their biological parentage or not, and whether they know their true biological parentage or not.

Read more »

Posted in: brother-sister,children,consanguineous,incest,myths,pregnancy,siblings

Encouraging President Obama and the Supreme Court

According to this Associated Press article by Julie Pace…

The Obama administration is quietly considering urging the Supreme Court to overturn California's ban on gay marriage, a step that would mark a political victory for advocates of same-sex unions and a deepening commitment by President Barack Obama to rights for gay couples.

More and more US states are adopting the limited same-gender freedom to marry. Many others have domestic partnerships or civil unions. In the two neighboring countries, Canada has had the limited same-gender freedom to marry and Mexico is moving towards it nationwide. The US, as a country, is playing catch-up. How embarrassing.

I urge President Obama and the Court to boldly, strongly put the US in a leadership role and support protections based on sexual orientation and relationship rights and full marriage equality for all, rather than a piecemeal approach of this freedom to marry or that form of civil union. Equality just for some, or in some aspects but not others, or in this state but not that state, is not equality. The Constitutional principles of equal protection, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and the right to privacy, along with basic fairness, rational reflection, and compassion, necessitate that the US government ensure the rights of all adults.

Supporting relationship rights, including full marriage equality for all, will eliminate the impractical, unjust, and confusing inequalities in the law pertaining not only to some same-gender relationships, but in all adult relationships, including those that are polyamorous or consanguineous. Some of those inequalities include:

1. Utah’s criminalization of polyamory while other states allow polyamory but do not protect polyamorists and deny the polygamous and polyamorous freedom to marry.


2. Some states allowing first cousins to marry monogamously without restriction, other states allowing them to marry with restrictions, some states banning this freedom to marry, and even a couple of states criminalizing sex between first cousins.

3. Some states allowing any adults who are closer relatives their sexual rights with each other while other states ban those rights.

Nobody should fear being arrested and imprisoned for having a consensual relationship with other adults.

Nobody should be denied the freedom to marry other consenting adults.

There are people who love each other, who have been living as spouses, even have children together, who are denied their rights, who need and want full marriage equality.

Please, Mr. President, urge the Court and the American people to support equal rights for all. Please, to those who serve on the Court: end the discrimination.

An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, harassment, or discrimination.

Let’s get on the right side of history sooner rather than later, and put the hate, bigotry, and bullying behind us. Protect the rights of all adults in all states.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,boundaries,courts,DOMA,ENDA,freedom to marry,lack of equality harms,law,marriage equality,Proposition 8,USA

Encouraging President Obama and the Supreme Court

According to this Associated Press article by Julie Pace…

The Obama administration is quietly considering urging the Supreme Court to overturn California's ban on gay marriage, a step that would mark a political victory for advocates of same-sex unions and a deepening commitment by President Barack Obama to rights for gay couples.

More and more US states are adopting the limited same-gender freedom to marry. Many others have domestic partnerships or civil unions. In the two neighboring countries, Canada has had the limited same-gender freedom to marry and Mexico is moving towards it nationwide. The US, as a country, is playing catch-up. How embarrassing.

I urge President Obama and the Court to boldly, strongly put the US in a leadership role and support protections based on sexual orientation and relationship rights and full marriage equality for all, rather than a piecemeal approach of this freedom to marry or that form of civil union. Equality just for some, or in some aspects but not others, or in this state but not that state, is not equality. The Constitutional principles of equal protection, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and the right to privacy, along with basic fairness, rational reflection, and compassion, necessitate that the US government ensure the rights of all adults.

Supporting relationship rights, including full marriage equality for all, will eliminate the impractical, unjust, and confusing inequalities in the law pertaining not only to some same-gender relationships, but in all adult relationships, including those that are polyamorous or consanguineous. Some of those inequalities include:

1. Utah’s criminalization of polyamory while other states allow polyamory but do not protect polyamorists and deny the polygamous and polyamorous freedom to marry.


2. Some states allowing first cousins to marry monogamously without restriction, other states allowing them to marry with restrictions, some states banning this freedom to marry, and even a couple of states criminalizing sex between first cousins.

3. Some states allowing any adults who are closer relatives their sexual rights with each other while other states ban those rights.

Nobody should fear being arrested and imprisoned for having a consensual relationship with other adults.

Nobody should be denied the freedom to marry other consenting adults.

There are people who love each other, who have been living as spouses, even have children together, who are denied their rights, who need and want full marriage equality.

Please, Mr. President, urge the Court and the American people to support equal rights for all. Please, to those who serve on the Court: end the discrimination.

An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, harassment, or discrimination.

Let’s get on the right side of history sooner rather than later, and put the hate, bigotry, and bullying behind us. Protect the rights of all adults in all states.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,boundaries,courts,DOMA,ENDA,freedom to marry,lack of equality harms,law,marriage equality,Proposition 8,USA

Do Teen-Aged Murderers Deserve a Second Chance?

Barbara Hernandez

Barbara Hernandez was convicted in 1991 of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison; she was sixteen years old.  The facts adduced at her trial were that she coaxed her victim, a 28-year old auto mechanic, into a vacant crack-house in Pontiac where her boyfriend, or pimp, depending on who you believe, stabbed him 25-times. 

The motive: robbery to obtain funds to fuel said boy friend's raging crack habit. Sympathy rating on scale of one to five; zero.

More than 20-years after her capital conviction, views on the Hernandez case remain polarizing.  For example, in an AP article detailing the murder, the prosecutor that tried Hernandez here in he Oakland County Circuit Court recently reflected on the case she submitted to the jury.

During her years with the Oakland County Prosecutor, Donna Pendergast, now an Assistant Attorney General, tried many high profile murders.  She had this to say about Hernandez:

Contrary to her assertion that she's cowering around the corner under some sort of influence of her boyfriend, quite the contrary. She's right in the mix and the evidence shows that.  At 16 years old, when you're involved with a scheme of that (kind of) deadly ramifications, you know what you're doing.  

On the other hand, one of the now-retired investigators who took a statement from Hernandez soon after the incident, recently claimed that he no longer recalls her saying that she may have held the victim; he told the AP:  "why I testified to that; who knows?"

Although the U.S. Supreme Court recently decided in Miller v Alabama that mandatory juvenile lifer laws violate the 8th Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, critical aspects on the application of this decision were not addressed by the SCOTUS.  For example, recent cases percolating through the appellate courts here in Michigan address whether SCOTUS' Miller decision should be applied retroactively.

In People v Carp, the Michigan Court of Appeals recently held that the SCOTUS' Eighth Amendment ruling did not apply retroactively.  In doing so, Judge Michael J. Talbot conducted a tour de force of juvenile and capital sentencing jurisprudence, mandating lower courts with pending cases to take a juvenile offender's tender years into account; exhorting the legislature to address this perceived gap in our justice system; but nevertheless refusing to retroactively apply Miller on a collateral review.

Of course, Raymond Carp's attorneys have applied for further appellate review to the Michigan Supreme Court.  The briefs are in, with the Michigan Attorney General having just filed a brief in opposition earlier this month; and [update] an op-ed piece in the Detroit News.

Juvenile lifers recently received a big boost by a decision of United States District Court Judge John O'Meara who ruled that the SCOTUS Miller decision was retroactive for the 350 lifers convicted as juveniles and that prisoners so convicted deserved a chance at parole.

Convicts in Barbara Hernandez's position await the outcome of this decision while their lives burn-down like a candle.  Michigan's oldest juvenile lifer is 68; convicted of murder in 1962.

We here at the Law Blogger have to wonder: do murdering teens deserve a second chance in life?

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: Barbara Hernandez,Donna Pendergast,Judge Michael Talbot,juvenile lifer law,Michigan Attorney General,Michigan Court of Appeals,Oakland County Prosecutor,SCOTUS